I have read the site and it is a way to get western christians into orthodoxy. making palatable for them ( westerns) by letting them keep the common prayer book plus some orthodox additions. keep reading the site.

and you say that there is no double standard. it is crystal clear.

that is a gross simplification, but also it is entirely different circumstances than the unia of the roman chruch.

Joe Zollars

Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.

I have read the site and it is a way to get western christians into orthodoxy. making palatable for them ( westerns) by letting them keep the common prayer book plus some orthodox additions. keep reading the site.

Upon rereading my earlier posts, it occurs to me that I may have come off a bit harsh with regards to the Euphrosynos Cafe. I was mearly reacting to those who feel it represents the opinions of the average ROCOR member or of the Orthodox Traditionalists (in the Orthodox Church) in general.

I apologize as I did not mean to come off so harsh. When I used to participate on that forum they taught me to love many things within Orthodoxy and one of the key individuals there was extremely instrumental in my conversion. Thus, my posts were not meant to be so harsh, but I can see where they could be interpreted that way.

Sincerely,Joe Zollars

Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.

For quite a while (decades), particularly after the "lifting of anathemas" in 1965 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, ROCOR had decidedly distanced itself from what most consider to be "mainstream" or "official" Orthodoxy. They were in communion with the GOC (Genuine Orthodox Church) of Greece, aka. "Old Calendarists", and even had tried to broker a re-union between them and the so called "Matthewites" (who had separated from the "Florinite" Old Calendarists decades earlier.) While it is much debated, at best the only other parties ROCOR was in communion with for those years (though, I have to say again, you'll get different answers on this both from those in ROCOR and the parties I'm about to mention) were the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Jerusalem Patriarchate.

Because of this former posture of ROCOR, they were not well liked by ecumenistic/modernist churches. Obviously, they were also thoroughly condemned by the Moscow Patriarchate, for these and many other reasons as well.

However this is changing fast, as the ROCOR itself has been changing fast in recent years. Thus, it's becoming very rare to find people in "world Orthodoxy" describing ROCOR the way they might have 10+ years ago (though you'll still get a few cranks describing ROCOR as being "semi canonical", whatever this means.) Generally, the rancor ROCOR used to receive is now reserved for all of it's "hardliners" who for the most part have been pushed out of the ROCOR (ROAC and ROCiE come to mind.)

That is true. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong simply because they are traditionalists. I mean, lately this board has embraced ecumenism at a level that I sometime feel goes too far.

As far as I'm concerned (whatever that is worth), the biggest crime of the nasty "extremists" (beyond the normal human failings they share with humanity in general - including New Calendarists (NC) and those in communion with them) is their desire to be Orthodox, with no ideological hyphenation.

I think NC's should ask themselves just why it is these pesky folks will have little to do with them. Do they (NC's) recognize some difference of faith between themselves and the Old Calendarists (OC's)? If their answer is "yes", then there is a problem which can only be resolved by accusing the OC's of heresy - yet I've never seen this (which is telling in itself, given how much ink has been spilled denouncing the OC's...not to mention in some cases, the blood.) However if these NC's really do not recognize a difference in faith, then why the separation? Did a bunch of cranks just get up one morning and decide "hey, we don't like you anymore" and walk away, taking their bag of marbles with them? That's the impression I think some might get, given the dismissive tone of many OC critics.

The truth is, the OC's are separated from the NC's because the former have violated the liturgical unity of the Church; and not simply on the basis that this was a "bad thing", but on the basis of previously existing canons prohibiting such a move. The problem is doubly terrible, given the express purpose of this calendar change (ecumenism - and yes, that "bad kind" of ecumenism...one need only read the Patriarchal Encyclical of the EP upon proposing the NC, to see it is steeped in ecclessiological falsehood.) Of course, the decades which were to follow only made the problem worse (perhaps it could be described as the further "flowering" of a bad seed...one of the lowest points being in 1965, when the Ecumenical Patriarchate "lifted" the Church's anathemas against Papism.)

If Orthodoxy is the religion that historically considered a violent end preferable to consenting to a "pinch of incence", then it is hard to imagine how the above do not constitute valid reasons for heirarchs to withdraw from the communion of the ecumenists, or those who humour them.

I think a big problem today is that we are all somewhat cynical towards God and religion in general. We've all been affected in subtle ways by secular attitudes, which tend to relativize anything. We're certainly not in the headspace to naturally empathize with the Holy Martyrs. I mean really...it's only a stupid pinch of incence! A pinch of incence to some ridiculous statue we don't really believe in anyway. Is not living a relatively peaceful, long life, not worth a little tolerance, not so much stricture and integrism?

There's a lot in the Fathers which is hard to hear, just as there is a lot in the sayings of our Lord Jesus Christ, which if taken seriously are hard to hear - if only because they're so damning. Given how terribly we fall short, how cowardly and shifty we are when push comes to shove, there are really only two basic reactions...

- justify one's self, seek to change or belittle the rules- admit you fall terribly short, confess the propriety of the rules, and hope you will be justified by God.

Mor thought that ROCOR was completely wacked out until he started talking to people like me & Bethany. ;-) Amazing to think that most "hardline ROCOR who were pushed in ROAC & ROCiE" (funny, I don't remember anyone pushing anyone, they pretty much hopped & skipped their ways into those new jurisdicitions) weren't/aren't cradleborn Orthos.

Logged

Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

We're certainly not in the headspace to naturally empathize with the Holy Martyrs. I mean really...it's only a stupid pinch of incence! A pinch of incence to some ridiculous statue we don't really believe in anyway. Is not living a relatively peaceful, long life, not worth a little tolerance, not so much stricture and integrism?

I don't think I agree with this Seraphim, though I am part of a very Traditionalist jurisdiction and take it seriously. But my own Church has not ceased to have her martyrs. Every year. And I am sure this is the case in other jurisdictions. They could play a quiet game with those who hate them, but even this year when one of the ancient monasteries was about ot be pulled down crowds of Orthodox faithful flocked onto the streets shouting - not 'we will kill you for this' - but 'we are willing to lay down our lives and give our blood to protect this holy place'.

They could all have stayed at home. They know that they are liable to be killed for their faith.

Surely I wish I had their faith, but don't deny it to those who still face persecution and even martyrdom day by day.

On another thread I have asked for prayer for a convert who is in Saudi Arabia. He also knows the cost and has not drawn back from facing it.

OrthodoxyOrDeath is GOC. So tell me, since ROCOR was in communion with the GOC (and actually was responsible for there even being a GOC)... at what point did the GOC become non-Orthodox? In what year did the GOC change their views or practices? And when did ROCOR say that they were non-Orthodox and therefore had to break from them? The ROCOR priest who I asked advice from (who is pro-MP-union, btw) said that he thought the GOC had grace. Perhaps he should be informed that the GOC doesn't have grace after all?

The only difference bewteen your unia and ours is that we don't required ours to abandon their traditions while you guys have forced them to accept some of yours while maintiain some of their.

Huh? When as a part of the Western Rite did the Orthodox Church ever assume one single parish that belonged to a Roman Catholic diocese, never mind an entire RC Diocese, as was the case in reverse with respect to the Unias? The Western Rite consists of formerly protestant, mainly High Anglican, parishes, not Catholic ones. By contrast the Byzantine Eastern Rite consists of entire dioceses that were Orthodox immediately prior to being assumed into Catholicism. Yes, they are comprised of Western Christians, but these are not parishes that came from Catholicism into Orthodoxy. If the Orthodox Church had assumed masses of parishes and Dioceses from Catholicism into Orthodoxy, then THAT would be like the Unias ... but of course, that has never happened.

Being a RC myself, the Church may appear to be organized, but so was the military in Iraq. If it was that highly & extremely organized how did them pedophiles get in. The Church is fragmented on Liturgy, altar girls, abortion etc etc.

You can be organized & still disfunctional.

james, wandering & talking in the Mojave desert

Give me a break.

Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.

Being a RC myself, the Church may appear to be organized, but so was the military in Iraq. If it was that highly & extremely organized how did them pedophiles get in. The Church is fragmented on Liturgy, altar girls, abortion etc etc.

You can be organized & still disfunctional.

james, wandering & talking in the Mojave desert

Give me a break.

show me one catholic church breaking communion with another church. show me one church bickering with another church. or threatening to excommunicate or go into schism. This is a church that is not organized. or a church that some are in communion and others are not.

You are sounding like a protestant. what is it with your ex catholics? You know exactly where the church stands on abortion,divorce, homosexuality, atar girls, liturgy, etc, etc, etc.

There is no confusion ,just priests that are disobedient and do not want to follow what the church teaches. If you did not know it this is the " Modernism Heresy"

OrthodoxyOrDeath is GOC. So tell me, since ROCOR was in communion with the GOC (and actually was responsible for there even being a GOC)... at what point did the GOC become non-Orthodox? In what year did the GOC change their views or practices? And when did ROCOR say that they were non-Orthodox and therefore had to break from them? The ROCOR priest who I asked advice from (who is pro-MP-union, btw) said that he thought the GOC had grace. Perhaps he should be informed that the GOC doesn't have grace after all?

(I'll leave ROAC out of it, as that could get really nasty)

What I say regarding teh GOC and other such groups is merely my opinion as ROCOR has no official position on them and many do think they are Orthodox. I do not think they are Orthodox because they broke with ROCOR and are not in communion with the Orthodox Church. Honestly my opinions with regards to the GOC are not well formed as I don't know much about them, however I would say that they are not Orthodox because they are not in the Orthodox Church. A pro-MP/ROCOR reunion Priest approves of hte GOC? umm shouldn't that be your first clue.

Joe Zollars

Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.

I do not think they are Orthodox because they broke with ROCOR and are not in communion with the Orthodox Church.

Last I checked, it was ROCOR who went ahead and entered into communion with a party considered schismatic and ecclessiologically heretical by the GOC, not the GOC sending a letter to ROCOR saying "hey, we have no use for you anymore" or something like this.

By "not in communion with the Orthodox Church", do you mean the EP?

Patriarchal Cathedral of St.George - Constantinople (December7,1965) - The 'Lifting' of the Anathemas of the Orthodox Church against Papism - Athenagoras announces the 'lifting', co-enthroned with Cardinal Lawrence Shenan

Quote

RB etc. the GOC and ROAC and other such groups can be thought of in a very crude way as being similar to groups such as the SSPV and CMRI within the Catholci Church.

How so? Not disagreeing or agreeing at this point, just wondering why you think this is the case.

Patriarchal Cathedral of St.George - Constantinople (December7,1965) - The 'Lifting' of the Anathemas of the Orthodox Church against Papism - Athenagoras announces the 'lifting', co-enthroned with Cardinal Lawrence ShenanHow so? Not disagreeing or agreeing at this point, just wondering why you think this is the case.

I have read the site and it is a way to get western christians into orthodoxy. making palatable for them ( westerns) by letting them keep the common prayer book plus some orthodox additions. keep reading the site.

and you say that there is no double standard. it is crystal clear.

To my surprise, I have to agree with Romanbyzantium on this. It seems to me that differences in Western and Eastern liturgical forms cannot be dissociated from the differences in theological and philosophical orientation that led, in the case of the Western Church, to the eventual schism.

It seems to me that becoming Orthodox (a process on which I pray I am still embarked) involves more than just embracing certain doctrines and dogma, and rejecting certain others. To do that, but keep the same liturgy, it seems to me, is to underestimate the degree to which spiritual formation is bound up with the ethos of the Church, and the degree to which the latter is indissolubly bound up with liturgical forms.

The authentic liturgies of an Orthodox West have not been, and probably cannot be, reconstructed. To be Orthodox is to embrace a traditional approach to faith and life. And, traditions cannot be "reconstructed."

On the subject of Orthodox double standards: Reaction against the Unia often seems to go hand in hand with complaints about "proscelytism." Often folks try to define the latter as dishonest, coercive measures to produce conversions, but how much of that is really being done among Christians nowadays? The complaint seems to boil down to being against everyone else trying to convert folks from our Church to their denomination. Well, if they really believe they embody the Church, why wouldn't they? And, shouldn't we?

Our local Orthodox Christian Missions board sponsors a missionary Church in a demographically Hispanic part of town, offering Spanish-language Orthodox services, in the hopes of winning the unchurched to Orthdoxy, yes (but, come on, how many Hispanics do not have some kind of Roman Catholic family/cultural background?), but also in the hopes of producing conversions among those disaffected with, or alienated from, Roman Catholicism. Should the Orthodox regard this as a bad thing? I don't think so.

I say: "Yes!" to proscelytism (excluding coercive or dishonest tactics, to be sure); "no!" to the Unia of either the RC or Orthodox varieties.

To my surprise, I have to agree with Romanbyzantium on this. It seems to me that differences in Western and Eastern liturgical forms cannot be dissociated from the differences in theological and philosophical orientation that led, in the case of the Western Church, to the eventual schism.

What liturgical differences do you see as having been a cause of the schism? And if this is the case, then how far away from schism would we have been from those in Alexandria or Britain, both regions with wildly different liturgies than that of the "Imperial City"? It's very interesting to me that, in spite of her very different liturgical life, Rome remained solidly Orthodox for centuries while one eastern patriarch after another was falling into heresy. This liturgy is what the modern day AWRV liturgies are closely based upon (though I would prefer seeing a more Sarum-Rite-based liturgy prevail in the "BCPWR" parishes, as it's the true Orthodox English expression, instead of the Anglo-Catholic thing that's going on now).

Quote

To be Orthodox is to embrace a traditional approach to faith and life. And, traditions cannot be "reconstructed."

True; I respect the point that traditions are seen as dynamic growth over time. Traditions can, however, also apparently be merged and modified. Surely no one would deny the historical schmorgasbord that is every liturgy out there; I would think that such rearranging and appropriating of Eastern liturgy into western (and vice versa) would have given rise to outrage among the fathers whose liturgies were changed, with cries of "they are changing our very belief!" or something like it, emerging. Rather, I would contend that "unity in diversity" should once again prevail in the Church, with constant dialogue maintained to preserve doctrinal unity. Not the path of least resistance, to be sure, but one that seems to most reflect the Church's capacity for catholicity.

Seraphim, no I do not mean necessarily the EP. I mean the ORthodox Church in General, not just the EP. One has to be in communion wiht a Canonical Orthodox Church, not just off doing their own thing.

As for the ROAC/GOC and SSPV/CMRI remark, I said that because amazingly they are very close in their eccleisiologies. They are more traditional than tradition and are willing to break communion because of it and feel they are the last Orthodox/Catholics on earth (whether they say this openly doesn't really matter--that is how their ecclesiology works).

Joe Zollars

Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.

That is true. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they are wrong simply because they are traditionalists. I mean, lately this board has embraced ecumenism at a level that I sometime feel goes too far.

Let's face the truth; Liberalism is not a part of Orthodoxy. It is simply a consequence of our weakness and selfishness.

We need places like the cafe to sometimes remind us of how Orthodoxy was/is traditionally practiced.

I agree completely.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

Exactly so. 'Twas intended to be "Christian." Orthodox is Orthodox is Orthodox. . . It's the name-calling and worthless hostilities among Orthodox groups that I reject. "SCOBATES" and "non-SCOBATES" are Orthodox Christians. I never see ROCOR separated from other Orthodox groups unless the separator is playing the broken "canonical drum."

Exactly so. 'Twas intended to be "Christian." Orthodox is Orthodox is Orthodox. . . It's the name-calling and worthless hostilities among Orthodox groups that I reject. "SCOBATES" and "non-SCOBATES" are Orthodox Christians. I never see ROCOR separated from other Orthodox groups unless the separator is playing the broken "canonical drum."

Next time I'll put World Orthodoxy, and Traditional Orthodoxy.

« Last Edit: July 22, 2004, 10:29:44 AM by Andreas »

Logged

"It's later than you think! Hasten therefore to do the work of God." -Fr. Seraphim (Rose)